Noumena are Intelligible Objects, thus Illusory

[Atla]

But VA thinks that there is way less to life than meets the eye. At least the chance hypothesis acknowledges that this world exists. According to VA that's completely insane, there is no world at all.

That's what makes him so funny..

[Iwannaplato]

Anyway, with that being said, did you at least understand how VA has been promoting a philosophy of existential nihilism that very few people on earth (aside from a few hardcore atheists) will ever accept? - (and rightly so, for it invokes the ridiculous "chance hypothesis")

I dislike certain tendencies in his philosophy - not his antirealism, but some things he hasn't talked about for a while. But one person's nihilism is another person's, well, non-nihilism. I think he sees purpose and meaning. He's got his projects and they matter to him. I understand that his beliefs entails things that for you are nihilistic. In a certain sense I react that way my self, but I don't think he's a nihilist. He believes in objective morals

I mean, aside from his no-brainer efforts to call into question the mythological nonsense handed down to us from ancient minds, what do you suppose he's wishing to achieve by his obsessive (hyper-manic) attempts to strip humans of any form of "hope" that there may indeed be more to life than meets the eye?

A lot of people here are like that. And then some of those who are not have religions/spiritualities that are not to my taste.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are the one who is claiming positively there is an absolutely mind-independent noumenon.

DUH

The onus is on you to prove [human-based] the absolutely mind-independent noumenon [non-human-based] exists as real.
From the above, it is a non-starter, else it is a contradiction.

The simple fact that you are responding to one of my posts proves it.
Unless you think I am a phanotm of your own mind...

Surely you are not a noumenon or thing-in-itself as defined by Kant or that 'fiction' of an unknown something.

Any way, in this case, it is possible I could be responding to 'you' a 'bot' or AI machine.

However, it is more likely you are another person using the internet somewhere on Earth.
But this inference of mine is based on my grounding the inference on a human-based FSK.
Because it is human-based 'you' in this case cannot be absolutely mind-independent from me.

To be more sure, it would be better for me to sit side by side as a physical body posting and responding to each other in a computer logged into Philosophy Now.
But then, to be more realistic, according to Hume 'you' are just a bundle of particles or wave in action grounded on a human-based FSK.

In whatever ways, there is no absolutely mind-independent 'you' things or reality; it is an impossibility. Your theory of reality is an illusion albeit a useful illusion.

Suggest you read this re Hume;

Fictions of the Imagination
Fictions in Hume’s Science of Man
The “Vulgar” Fiction of a Continued Existence
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-ima/#SH5b
The Philosophical Fiction of Double Existence
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-ima/#SH5c
The Philosophical Fiction of an Underlying Substance
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-ima/#SH5d

This is why Hume indirectly insisted the rationalists' 'noumenon' cannot be empirically real.
Hume implied your noumenon is a psychological aberration and illusion.

You are accusing antirealists as likely solipsistic while being ignorant you as a realist is standing on solipsistic grounds.
see:
Philosophical Realism [mind-independence] is Solipsistic.
viewtopic.php?t=40197

Gibber gibber gibber

As usual, in the end, you have nothing substantial to counter.

Read up Hume's Treatise and Enquiry more thoroughly and deeply.

[Veritas Aequitas]

But VA thinks that there is way less to life than meets the eye. At least the chance hypothesis acknowledges that this world exists. According to VA that's completely insane, there is no world at all.

That's what makes him so funny..

Strawman as usual.

As an empirical realist, I have never denied there is no world [external] at all.

What I deny is that "external world where philosophical realists claimed to be absolutely mind-independent" which is grounded on an illusion.

[Atla]

But VA thinks that there is way less to life than meets the eye. At least the chance hypothesis acknowledges that this world exists. According to VA that's completely insane, there is no world at all.

That's what makes him so funny..

Strawman as usual.

As an empirical realist, I have never denied there is no world [external] at all.

What I deny is that "external world where philosophical realists claimed to be absolutely mind-independent" which is grounded on an illusion.

So you are denying the external world.

[Veritas Aequitas]

But VA thinks that there is way less to life than meets the eye. At least the chance hypothesis acknowledges that this world exists. According to VA that's completely insane, there is no world at all.

That's what makes him so funny..

Strawman as usual.

As an empirical realist, I have never denied there is no world [external] at all.

What I deny is that "external world where philosophical realists claimed to be absolutely mind-independent" which is grounded on an illusion.

So you are denying the external world.

I am denying your illusion that "the external world is absolutely mind-independent" which is grounded on an illusion thus you are delusional on this as with theists and their illusory God.

[Atla]

Strawman as usual.

As an empirical realist, I have never denied there is no world [external] at all.

What I deny is that "external world where philosophical realists claimed to be absolutely mind-independent" which is grounded on an illusion.

So you are denying the external world.

I am denying your illusion that "the external world is absolutely mind-independent" which is grounded on an illusion thus you are delusional on this as with theists and their illusory God.

Yes, you're an idiot who thinks that believing in a mind-independent table and believing in God are essentially the same thing.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So you are denying the external world.

I am denying your illusion that "the external world is absolutely mind-independent" which is grounded on an illusion thus you are delusional on this as with theists and their illusory God.

Yes, you're an idiot who thinks that believing in a mind-independent table and believing in God are essentially the same thing.

As I had argued they are only the same continuum.
Theists believe in a God that is absolutely mind-independent without proofs just as the same with philosophical realist like you who believe in a mind-independent thing [non-dual] without proof.

[Atla]

I am denying your illusion that "the external world is absolutely mind-independent" which is grounded on an illusion thus you are delusional on this as with theists and their illusory God.

Yes, you're an idiot who thinks that believing in a mind-independent table and believing in God are essentially the same thing.

As I had argued they are only the same continuum.
Theists believe in a God that is absolutely mind-independent without proofs just as the same with philosophical realist like you who believe in a mind-independent thing [non-dual] without proof.

I have every possibly proof for the table. You're an idiot.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes, you're an idiot who thinks that believing in a mind-independent table and believing in God are essentially the same thing.

As I had argued they are only the same continuum.
Theists believe in a God that is absolutely mind-independent without proofs just as the same with philosophical realist like you who believe in a mind-independent thing [non-dual] without proof.

I have every possibly proof for the table. You're an idiot.

Do you have proof for a non-dual table?

The most credible proof [verification and justification] of a real table is via a human-based scientific FSK which is inevitably "dualist" i.e. scientists observing a table.
Your non-dual table, that noumenon table is an illusion.

[Iwannaplato]

I have every possibly proof for the table. You're an idiot.

And a pragmatist might well argue that the model of object persistance works very well and it's rather parsimonius, regardless of what the ultimate not experiencable (lol ) ontological reality is. I mean, lol again , we never experience this disappearing and suddenly arising Moon either.

Even utter strangers from different cultures will find very similar objects when opening a box in a room, then leaving the room for the next person. Perhaps it's not the same plastic bird. Perhaps it arose for each person and is not exactly the same. But man, there is some unbelievable persistance. Utterly miraculous. Why does the category of the thing arise time and again, even if it isn't 'the same thing.'?

Or if antirealism is the case, there is something quite different about identity between humans. Perhaps Jung was right!

[Atla]

Do you have proof for a non-dual table?

The most credible proof [verification and justification] of a real table is via a human-based scientific FSK which is inevitably "dualist" i.e. scientists observing a table.
Your non-dual table, that noumenon table is an illusion.

That's nonsense. According to science, the scientists and the table are part of the same world, made of the same atoms etc., which is consistent with the nondual picture. Science isn't dualist.

Look VA, I had you in checkmate since like our first exchanges a few years ago. It's just a long checkmate because we have to go through Kant and Buddhism and nondualism and all that.

[Atla]

I have every possibly proof for the table. You're an idiot.

And a pragmatist might well argue that the model of object persistance works very well and it's rather parsimonius, regardless of what the ultimate not experiencable (lol ) ontological reality is. I mean, lol again , we never experience this disappearing and suddenly arising Moon either.

Even utter strangers from different cultures will find very similar objects when opening a box in a room, then leaving the room for the next person. Perhaps it's not the same plastic bird. Perhaps it arose for each person and is not exactly the same. But man, there is some unbelievable persistance. Utterly miraculous. Why does the category of the thing arise time and again, even if it isn't 'the same thing.'?

Or if antirealism is the case, there is something quite different about identity between humans. Perhaps Jung was right!

Yes object persistence is parsimonius. If object persistence is just an illusion, then we probably have to come up with some comparatively big background mechanism, that always presents to us objects as if they were persistent. Or just say: magic, duh.

[Iwannaplato]

Yes object persistence is parsimonius. If object persistence is just an illusion, then we probably have to come up with some comparatively big background mechanism, that always presents to us objects as if they were persistent. Or just say: magic, duh.

And arguing that discontinuity is the case is arguing that one knows the Moon isn't there when one isn't looking at it. That's a claim to knowledge about noumena. It's precisely something we can't experience.

[Atla]

Yes object persistence is parsimonius. If object persistence is just an illusion, then we probably have to come up with some comparatively big background mechanism, that always presents to us objects as if they were persistent. Or just say: magic, duh.

And arguing that discontinuity is the case is arguing that one knows the Moon isn't there when one isn't looking at it. That's a claim to knowledge about noumena. It's precisely something we can't experience.

Hey no fair, you are using logic.. let's be more considerate towards the less gifted among us - VA for example - who don't have access to such mental luxuries..